Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-05-28
a PICTURE AND IFS DOUBLE.
The STORY of Two Alleged Van
Marches.

Advanced sheets OF the June Dirt Am1
tear furnish a curious story relating TO Two
paintings Of the fame subject both attriDu-
itd 10 Van MaIcke, who has declared thu
he ''makts point Of never painting two
pictures shke." According 20 the arr
amateur Mr.. r. J. Briggs. OF This city, Is
the owner OF a small Van Narcke pur.
chased IN Paris four years ago from Goupil
& Co. When the Il. II. lIalsted colee'
ton was shown at the Academy last
winter MIR. Briggs, visiting the eXhibi.
ton. "rec0gnized the double OF bis own
nicture. the two being virtually Identical
not only n composition, color, and other
details. but also in size." Mr.. Briggs called
the attention OF Mr.. IIals,ed 10 the eco
Incidence" and there was an interchange
of letters. The Art amateur states that the
picture in the IIalsied collection was put
into the sale among others belonging To
different dealers to be sold for their bene-
it." Mr. Briggs's request for comparl-
son Of pictures, however, brought out
a letter from NJ. Knoedler & Co. stating
that 1.-THE picture which Mr.. llflsted
purchased Of us was bought by Us IN
April, 1855, Of GOupi q Co., after careful
selection, and It would be hardly probable
that we in our lifelong experience would
be- 20 mistaken Is 10 buy a copy Tor an
original" At the same time MesSrS.
KnoeGCr & Co. said: /" As we do not
know Your picture, we know from the
source where Il was procured that II must
tie az original" II was proposed that SIR.
Briggs should take his picture to The Acad-
envy Tor comparison. and Dir. Brlgg' re-
peated his suggestion that the knoedler
Iiciure should be brought to his
house for the same purpose. but nothing
vas done. At the sale the h1lsled'
KnoCdler Van Marcke'" went for SS2).
0Me,,rs. KnOcdler q Co. being the
buyers" Mr. Briggs tbereupon asked the
assistance Of the Editor OF The drt AmI-
fe,,r "to get at the bottom OF the matter
Nr. Ocbme. Of knocdler Il Co., waa "quite
sure that bis Van Marcke was genuine
picture, and supposed that Mr.. Briggs
picture rlst have been papted By Van
Marckc some wears after it," \ photo
granh Of Dir. BRIGGS picture. however,
Was sent ~ Paris by Sir. briggs and sub
mitted TO Van Marcke by Mr.. Theodore
Child. The latter reports that Van Marcke
recognized in It his work the original
pancl was painted from nature good
MANY wears ago. Van Mlrcke couSid-
ers that the replica OF which y01
speak must be- forgery, for ne
baS no recollection OF having copied
this picture. lie makes point OF never
painting two pictures oliSc; in his whole
career he has. on perhlps bali GoZen oc-
ca>ions, painted reductions of his own
pictule,. bat always with the consent of
the owner. his principle being that IN
artist has 30 night 10 make replicl OF any
work. because such replica dlminlSles
the value ~ the original You may there
fore conclude That II the replica in gus.
ton /, identical 10 c)mposltiDn with the
photograph inclo,ed. thlt replica is a copy
and forgery -
As has been often shown, the rec )l'ec-
tons Of prolific painter in regard to spc-
cia picture, are not lways accurate, but the
csse as 1t stands will furnish picture
buyers with food for serious thought. II
both paintings, however. could be sub
mitted directly to Van Marcke his decision
would be generally accepted. Ii photo
graph Of the Knoeder picture had been
sert TO the artist he might have decllred
That the original and the other copy, but,
AS il is, the burden OF further proof does not
seem TO ret upon Mr.. Briggs, and the
other side can hardly alioru to lei the mat
ter rest where it l..